According to Buddhism, all intentional killing is wrong/ unwholesome. Intentional means desiring death to happen and causing it somehow (even by advice), and it is not the same as motivation, a killing can be intentional or intentional, and intentional killing can be motivated by this or that motivation, e.g. by anger, greed, compassion, etc. All intentional killing is unwholesome regardless of the motivation.

Unintentional killing is not unwholesome, even though it can be a consequence of some unwholesome act. But if someone unintentionally kills someone by doing someone that is not unwholesome, he has done nothing unwholesome, e.g. if one drops a brick or throws a rock without intending to kill or harm anyone, yet someone gets hit by the brick/ rock and dies, the person that has dropped/ thrown it has not done anything unwholesome.

Even if a killing is done unintentionally by doing an unwholesome act the killing itself isn't unwholesome, being that it wasn't intentional. The example given in the Tipitaka is a monk hitting another monk out of anger, which is an offense. So, if a monk hits another monk out of anger without the intention of killing him, but the monk that was hit dies from the blow, the monk that hit him hasn't committed the offense of killing but the offense of hitting a monk out of anger.

The rule mentioning the offense (Pc 74) is interesting, because commentary on it allows self-defense, of course, as long as there's no intention to kill. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, in his explanation of the Buddhist Monastic Code elaborates on that rule (like on all the other rules, including the first precept [listed Pj 3] from where I got the above information about Buddha's view on killing) and as the section "Non-offenses" gives this passage as explanation:

"According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow "desiring freedom." The Commentary's discussion of this point shows that it includes what we at present would call self-defense; and the Commentary's analysis of the factors of the offense here shows that even if anger or displeasure arises in one's mind in cases like this, there is no penalty."

What I've been thinking about and what about I want to ask is this:

When ten unwholesome conducts are enumerated, it is not just killing that is named as the first bodily one, but "Here someone is a killer of living beings, he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings." Blows and violence are, together with killing, named as the first bodily unwholesome conduct.

In the light of such enumeration, is there any explanation in the Tipitaka or early literature as to why is violence that lacks the intention to kill given leeway if it has a proper motivation, whereas the one that includes it isn't, even if it has the same motivation as the former?

I think, ultimately, you should not harm anyone by any means, even if your life was at stake, because that would be clinging.

Also, I think you are wrong about the unwholesome matter. For example, killing is an unwholesome act, wheter you do it with intention or not. I don't remember where, but Buddha tells exactly about this relationship between action and intention, there being 4 possibilities (wholesome-wholesome, wholesome-unwholesome, unwholesome-wholesome, unwholesome-unwholesome). And If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. Something unwholesome can not change to something wholesome, just because the intention was different. Next time, pay more attention. You are responsible for all your actions (this was meant generally, not to you personally).

I think, ultimately, you should not harm anyone by any means, even if your life was at stake, because that would be clinging.

As I have already stated, according to Tipitaka, there is nothing unwholesome in harming someone in self-defense, as long as there is no intention to kill, even if anger arises in the mind.

For example, killing is an unwholesome act, wheter you do it with intention or not.

I am sorry, but this is not a Buddhist view, at least according to the Tipitaka. Kamma is in the intent. An example is given in the Tipitaka of a monk sitting on a chair with cloth on it, not knowing that there is a small child in the cloth, and the child dies. The monk has not broken the precept against killing. Another example is given of a monk choking on food, and another monk wanting to help him hits him on the back, but the chocking monk dies from the hit. The monk has not broken the precept against killing. I have in the message above stated an example from the Tipitaka of a monk doing an unwholesome act- hitting a monk out of anger, and the monk dying. The monk that hit him hasn't broken the precept against killing, but the precept against hitting someone out of anger.

I realised now this is a Classical Theravada subforum. As I am no expert in these matters, feel free to ignore me.

That's how I perceive it though. Even if it isn't unwholesome to harm someone in self-defense, that action would be born from clinging.

Also, even if accidental killing isn't unwholesome, I see 2 problems. 1. That interpretation gives rise to negligence. 2. I find it hard to believe that any action would go without consequences, whatever the intention was behind. Maybe the actor suffers similar fate in the future?

Hi GreenjuiceAnswer to your question is depend on the level of the person’s progress. Whether the person is just a Buddhist or an Arahant.The way I understand an Arahant will not get angry or kill even in self defence.

According to Buddhism, all intentional killing is wrong/ unwholesome. Intentional means desiring death to happen and causing it somehow (even by advice), and it is not the same as motivation, a killing can be intentional or intentional, and intentional killing can be motivated by this or that motivation, e.g. by anger, greed, compassion, etc. All intentional killing is unwholesome regardless of the motivation.

Here are conditions pertaining to harming/killing, that can influence the destination of the next rebirth/s:

1) The "prey" must be living (i.e. has rupa and nama).2) The "predator" must know that the prey is alive.3) The "predator" must have the intention to harm/kill4) The "predator" must exert effort to harm/kill5) The "prey" must be hurt or die by such effort

The intensity of this evil action factored by the type of prey:1) The size of the "prey." The bigger, the higher the evil intensity. Larger "prey" has more rupakalapas that must be destroyed.2) The level of morality and virtude of the "prey" (e.g. killing a human being is more evil than killing an animal) ( killing a monk is more evil than an immoral person) ( killing mother, father and arahant is the worst case)3) The effort exerted in killing, the higher the effort, the higher the evil intensity

The intensity of this evil action factored by the role of the "predator:"1) Direct killing: the "predator" personally carries out the deed2) Indirect killing: the "predator" hires executioner3) Release of weapon: hurling, throwing, firing of arms4) Construction of weapon: building firearms, bombs, traps5) Use of black magic:6) Use of supernatural power by the "predator"

It's important to know that a "predator" who is kills while aware that killing is Akusala action will face less evil consequence than a "predator" who kills with ignorance of such knowledge.

Another interesting thing.The person who ordered the harming/killing will receive the same unwholesome consequences as the people committed the evil deed. And may be more.

Let's take a crime boss who ordered ten killings. Each killer will receive the consequence of one killing. But the boss will receive the consequence of ten killings.

So, it is advisable that when we go out eating in restaurants, NEVER order the killing of live animals like fresh oyster, lobster, clam, fish etc. Don't be an executioner.

Another example: Let's take a warlord who ordered installations of land mines. The war is over, the warlord has been already died and reborn in hell. For all the killings, he is suffering for a very long time. Today, someone walked over the mine and died. The consequence of this kill will be added to the suffering of the warlord.

According to Buddhism, all intentional killing is wrong/ unwholesome. Intentional means desiring death to happen and causing it somehow (even by advice), and it is not the same as motivation, a killing can be intentional or intentional, and intentional killing can be motivated by this or that motivation, e.g. by anger, greed, compassion, etc. All intentional killing is unwholesome regardless of the motivation.

Unintentional killing is not unwholesome, even though it can be a consequence of some unwholesome act. But if someone unintentionally kills someone by doing someone that is not unwholesome, he has done nothing unwholesome, e.g. if one drops a brick or throws a rock without intending to kill or harm anyone, yet someone gets hit by the brick/ rock and dies, the person that has dropped/ thrown it has not done anything unwholesome.

Even if a killing is done unintentionally by doing an unwholesome act the killing itself isn't unwholesome, being that it wasn't intentional. The example given in the Tipitaka is a monk hitting another monk out of anger, which is an offense. So, if a monk hits another monk out of anger without the intention of killing him, but the monk that was hit dies from the blow, the monk that hit him hasn't committed the offense of killing but the offense of hitting a monk out of anger.

The rule mentioning the offense (Pc 74) is interesting, because commentary on it allows self-defense, of course, as long as there's no intention to kill. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, in his explanation of the Buddhist Monastic Code elaborates on that rule (like on all the other rules, including the first precept [listed Pj 3] from where I got the above information about Buddha's view on killing) and as the section "Non-offenses" gives this passage as explanation:

"According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow "desiring freedom." The Commentary's discussion of this point shows that it includes what we at present would call self-defense; and the Commentary's analysis of the factors of the offense here shows that even if anger or displeasure arises in one's mind in cases like this, there is no penalty."

What I've been thinking about and what about I want to ask is this:

When ten unwholesome conducts are enumerated, it is not just killing that is named as the first bodily one, but "Here someone is a killer of living beings, he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings." Blows and violence are, together with killing, named as the first bodily unwholesome conduct.

In the light of such enumeration, is there any explanation in the Tipitaka or early literature as to why is violence that lacks the intention to kill given leeway if it has a proper motivation, whereas the one that includes it isn't, even if it has the same motivation as the former?

In Middle Length Discourse #56 Buddha engages in a conversation in which it is reported by Upali that what is not willed is not greatly reprehensable, but intentional killing is greatly reprehensable.

Buddha has charged the monks with the duty of practising mindfulness and clear comprehension. So we should also train ourselves to be careful about what we do.